Where has the FSA’s leadership gone?
There once was a time when the UK’s Financial Services Authority (FSA) had quite a reputation in op risk. The regulator had grudging respect from the industry – it was named ‘Regulator of the Year’ in March in our Operational Risk Achievement Awards .
This was based on the work it had undertaken in 2002 and early 2003 – it had formed an industry working group, drafted credible best-practice guidance on op risk management systems and controls, and produced a substantial volume of thought on the subject. Indeed, it is fair to say the FSA and the UK’s financial services industry worked hand-in-hand to shape the op risk capital charge in a meaningful and lasting way.
But now, the FSA’s reputation is in tatters. This month, it decided to ditch the op risk systems and controls document – less then four months before the implementation deadline. The head of op risk policy, Colin Tattersall, is departing. And the FSA has been distressingly vague about the shape the AMA approval process is going to take.
Although some bankers and association officials insist the FSA has turned the corner, others are less sure. They are worried, and perhaps rightly so. If the FSA treats op risk in such a slap-dash manner, how can they expect senior management at their own firms to give the subject the respect their salaries and budgets are so dependent on?
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Risk management
JSCC considers default fund consolidation
Japanese clearing house looks for efficiency gains amid expansion of clearing products and influx of international firms
EU clearing houses pressured to diversify cloud vendors
CROs and regulators see tech concentration risk as a barrier to operational resilience
Why better climate data doesn’t always mean better decision-making
Risk Benchmarking research finds model and systems integration challenges almost as limiting to effective climate risk management
CanDeal looks to simplify third-party risk management
Six-bank vendor due diligence utility seeks international reach
Market players warn against European repo clearing mandate
Regulators urged to await outcome of US mandate and be wary of risks to government bond liquidity
Italy’s spread problem is not (always) a credit story
Occasional doubts over Italy’s role in the monetary union adds political risk premium, argues economist
Esma won’t soften regulatory expectations for cloud and AI
CCP supervisory chair signals heightened scrutiny of third-party risk and operational resilience
AI spend in US could be good for bonds in Europe – finance chiefs
Development of AI is capital-intensive, but adoption less so, which could favour EU